0
$\begingroup$

$$\newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{im}\;}\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{Span}}\newcommand{\rank}{\mathrm{rank}\;}$$For a bilinear map $\phi : V \times W \to E$ define the first nullspace as $$ N_1(\phi) = \{ v \in V : \forall w \in W . \phi(v,w) = 0 \}, $$ and the second nullspace as $$ N_2(\phi) = \{ w \in w : \forall v \in V . \phi(v,w) = 0\}. $$ It is obvious that resp. $N_1(\phi)$ and $N_2(\phi)$ are linear subspaces of resp. $V$ and $W$.

Let $\phi:V\times W \to E$, and $\psi:V\times W \to G$ be bilinear maps, such that $N_1(\psi) \subset N_1(\phi)$ and $N_2(\psi) \subset N_2$. W. H. Greub in his Multilinear Algebra book claims (1st ed., ch 1.1, problem 4b), that in this case there is a linear mapping $T : G \to E$, such that $\phi = T\circ\psi$.

I think, I found a counter example. Assume that $V,W,E,G$ are all standard Hilbert spaces over $\mathbb{R}$, with the inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ and orthonormal base $(e_i)_{i=1}$, probably even of finite dimension. Let $$\psi(v,w) = \langle A(v),w \rangle e_1,$$ and $$ \phi(v,w) = B(v)f(w), $$ where $A : V \to W$ and $B : V \to G$ are linear with $\ker A \subset \ker B$ and $$ f : W \to \mathbb{R} $$ is a linear functional with $(\mathrm{im} \; A)^\bot \subset \ker f$. Thus, $ \ker A = N_1(\psi) \subset N_1(\phi) = \ker B$ and $ (\im A)^\bot = N_2(\psi) \subset N_2(\phi) = \ker f $. But in the case $\rank B > 1$, it is clear that $\dim \im \phi > \dim \mathrm{\im \psi} = 1 $ and it is impossible to linearly map a 1d subspace onto a multidimensional one.

To be concrete take $V,W,G,E = \mathbb{R}^4$, take $A$ to be an orthogonal projection to the subspace $\Span(e_1,e_2,e_3)$, and $B$ to be an orthogonal projection to $\Span(e_1,e_2)$, while $f(w) = \langle w, e_1 \rangle $.

This result contradicts the text, so I need some external justification. Am I right or am I wrong?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The statement, as you wrote it, is obviously false: in the particular case where $V=W$, $E=G=K$ (where $K$ is the base field, $\mathbb{R}$ if you want), and $N_1(\phi)=N_1(\psi)=N_2(\psi)=N_2(\psi)=0$, it would imply that two nondegenerated quadratic forms are always multiple of each other, which is nonsense. If you did not make a mistake when copying the statement, then the book is wrong.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.